30 December 2015

Sooo,
serial philanderer, if not rapist, Bill Cosby, has been charged in Pennsylvania
and arrested in connection with an alleged sexual assault which purportedly
occurred in 2004.

When I
saw one headline ‘Bill Has Been Charged With Sexual Assault’, I thought Bill
Clinton, not Bill Cosby.

Wrong
Bill?

No,
seriously, if Bill Cosby sexually harassed, assaulted, and/or raped women, he
deserves to be charged, prosecuted, found guilty be a jury of his peers, and
sentenced to spend the last years of his life in prison. Furthermore, he
deserves to be stripped of every honorarium, including the Presidential Medal
of Freedom.

You
know, now that this generation is trying to erase George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, (hated Fascist) Woodrow Wilson, and Cecil Rhodes, it raises an
interesting thought:

What
will future generations think of William Jefferson Clinton?

* A man
who, as a student, was asked to leave Oxford over the allegation that he raped
a fellow student, a 19-year-old English woman named Eileen Wellstone who
accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her after she met him at a pub near
Oxford in 1969. Her appearance and injuries were consistent with having
been raped. SHE WAS BRUISED AND HER LIP WAS SWOLLEN AND BLEEDING,
AS A RESULT OF BEING BITTEN DURING THE ASSAULT(keeps
that in mind). Due to their daughter’s physical and emotional states, Ms
Wellstone’s parents decided against pressing charges with the legal
authorities, but did bring the matter to the appropriate people at Oxford.

Clinton
admitted to having sex with the woman although he claimed that it was ‘consensual.’
Oxford asked him to leave voluntarily or he would be sent down.

* A
man, who as Attorney General of Arkansas, was accused of raping Juanita
Broaddrick and told her she'd -'THAT' being the swollen lip that he
had bit violently during his assault. She was believed by both those she
contemporaneously confided in (like her roommate immediately after Clinton
left) as well as reporters like Lisa Myers of NBC, who interviewed her many,
many years later.

Hillary later made an oblique reference to the rape
when speaking with Broaddrick and Bill apologized to Juanita for the assault in
1991.

* A man who, as Attorney General and Governor, so adored his wife and daughter, that he carried on a 12 year affair with a cabaret singer and cared not if the world knew it.

* A man
who, as the Governor of Arkansas forTWELVE YEARS, refused to remove the
Confederate flag.

* A man who, during his 12-year tenure as Governorsigned
Act 985 making the birthdays of Martin Luther King, Jr, the preeminent leader
of the civil-rights movement, and Robert E Lee, the general who led the
Confederate army, a state holiday -TO
BE OBSERVED ON THE SAME DAY.

* A man
who, as President, decided to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a
staunch segregationist like William J Fulbright, who, by the way, FILIBUSTERED
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

* A man
who, as Leader of the Free World, carried on a sexual relationship with a young
woman close to his daughter’s age while he was President and she a lowly
interned. Not only did he turn the Oval Office into a place of sordid
assignations, he turned a 21 year-old intern’s rectum into his own personal
humidor.

* A man
who, as President of the United States, suborned perjury and obstruction of
justice.

* A man
who was disbarred because he committed perjury before Federal District Judge
Susan Webber Wright.

* A man, who as President, generated headlines such as these:

Law in
the Clinton Era; A Feminist Dilemma and
led to Second Generation Feminists, like Gloria Steinem, being so conflicted (He’s a sexual predator v He’s pro-abortion!)
that they came up with the completely hypocritical ‘One
Free Grope Rule’– your boss can turn your
rectum into his personal humidor and that is just fine as long as he only does
it once.

Feminists Support Clinton by Gloria Steinem

It’s the basis of sexual
harassment law. It also explains why the news media’s obsession with sex qua
sex is offensive to some, titillating to many and beside the point to almost
everybody. Like most feminists, most Americans become concerned about sexual
behavior when someone’s will has been violated; that is, when “no” hasn’t been
accepted as an answer.

Perhaps we have a
responsibility to make it O.K. for politicians to tell the truth — providing
they are respectful of “no means no; yes means yes” — and still be able to
enter high office.

Until then, we will disqualify
energy and talent the country needs.

There
are several women who could be asked if Clinton knows what 'no means no'
means’.

Yet from the moment former Arkansas state worker Paula Corbin
Jones came forward in May 1994 with her claim of indecent advances by then-Gov.
Clinton, feminists were remarkably quick to abandon the Anita Hill paradigm. On
CNN, legal scholar and former Democratic strategist Susan Estrich declared that
it was healthy for feminists to make the point that "not all women
necessarily are telling the truth, and not every complaint deserves to be used
in a way which destroys a man." (Trying to neutralize charges of partisan
hypocrisy, Estrich also noted, "Maybe we show it in the case of a friend
of ours, but so be it.")

Others who had supported wide-ranging definitions of sexual
harassment in the past suggested that if Clinton indeed had Jones escorted to
his hotel room, displayed his distinguishing characteristics, and asked for
oral sex, it was no big deal. Katha Pollitt, the acid-tongued commentator for
The Nation, noted that Jones lost no pay or promotions for rebuffing him.
Eleanor Smeal, former head of the National Organization for Women and president
of the Feminist Majority Foundation, opined that it was "a marginal sexual
harassment case at best."

Many feminists feebly argued that Jones didn't need their help.
She was going to have her day in court, they said, whereas Anita Hill would not
have been allowed to testify without feminist pressure. The dismissal of
Jones's lawsuit took away this excuse; interestingly, some of the people who
had used it, including ex-Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), applauded Judge
Wright's ruling. On ABC's This Week,
NOW President Patricia Ireland couldn't give a straight answer to the question,
"If Paula Jones's allegations are true, was she harassed?" A number
of feminist commentators asserted that a case of harassment must involve some
economic or psychological harm to the plaintiff. In fact, that hasn't been the
law since 1993--though Wright did cite the absence of tangible damage in
dismissing Jones's claim of outrage under Arkansas state law.

See,
there can be no sexual harassment or assault by a Democrat unless you lost pay
or a promotion…and that isonlyif you rebuffed him instead of
going along under duress.

* A man
who, as President and while physically in the Oval Office, suggested a little
quid-pro-quo to an old acquaintance and Clinton fundraiser, who had fallen on
hard financial times and was seeking a position in the Administration or
elsewhere. As he was mauling her, the bankrupt husband she was trying to
save committed suicide. AND lowlife
scum like David Corn said (paraphrasing) ‘If she had just stayed home instead
of seeking employment, maybe her husband wouldn’t have killed himself!’

* A elder statesman who flew on The Lolita Express (owned by convicted 'paedophile and sex slaver, Jeffrey Epstein) at least a dozen times, vacationed on Orgy Island (also owned by Epstein), intervened to obtain a reduced sentence for his billionaire, paedophilic friend, and even invited the paedophile's Assistant/Madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, whose personal computer contained numerous examples of (photographic) child pornography to the extremely exclusive wedding of his own daughter, Chelsea.

* A man
who, as an international statesman and leader, has continued to have sexual
liaisons even during the times his own wife was campaigning for Senate and
President…TWICE.

* A man
whose indiscretions and mistresses are so well-known that his own Secret
Service detail knows when to remove The Energizer from the premises at
Chappaqua so that Her Imperial Royal Thighness will not arrive home to find
them.

* A man
who even the most ardent FemiNazis (like NOW circa 1999) will now admit is a
serial womanizer.

* This
is the very same man that Her Imperial Royal Thighness, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
wants to join her on the campaign trail to help lie about a non-existent
#WarOnWomen supposedly being waged by Republicans, Conservatives, and
libertarians.

If the
present generation can demand that symbols of racism, colonialization,
imperialism, and slavery must be removed from society, what is going to stop a
future generation from demanding that the sexist, serial sexual harasser,
sexual assaulter, rapist, philanderer, William Jefferson Clinton, shouldn’t be
erased (wiped with or without a cloth) from history?

17 December 2015

So, now, Marco Rubio and his Alinskyite-like flying monkeys areclaimingthat Senator Ted Cruz is an Isolationist because he doesn't want to bomb the world and is the new Charles Lindbergh because he believes that America's interests should be our first and foremost concern relative to foreign policy and national security.

One, Grenada. There was widespread support for the invasion and a bipartisan congressional investigation determined that the invasion was indeed justified because of the danger that the revolutionaries posed to American students located near a disputed airport. Even the über partisan Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill (D-MA), came to support and defend the mission. The anniversary of the invasion, 25 October 1983, is now a national holiday. It is called Thanksgiving Day.

One short invasion into a small Caribbean country and, yet, Reagan is still credited with leading the effort to defeat the Soviet Union. How could the Soviet Union possibly have fell without invading every country on the planet??? That's impossible! /

Reagan didn't send battalions into Central America, conduct airstrikes on Cuba, intervene in civil wars in Africa, or seek an Authorisation for Use of Military Force from Congress in order to intervene in the Soviet-Afghan war by putting American boots on the ground to fight alongside the Mujahideen. He also didn't employ American military force in pursuance of little, purple unicorns...

'Let's intervene in Libya. There might be a humanitarian disaster brewing (or a payoff for Sid Vicious Blumenthal described in an email on the Secretary of State's homebrew server). It will be easy. We came, we saw, he died. What's that loud vacuum sound? Why is there no civil society with ordered liberty in Libya now? I mean, we liberated them. Why are elements of Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the country. Why is our Consulate in Benghazi on fire and our Ambassador, along with 3 other Americans, dead? Why is ISIS now controlling growing parts of western Libya? Why didn't anyone see this coming? Why are we, the bestest and the greatestest minds in the history of the world, always having to suffer under fools, knaves, and idiots? I guess we are going to have to clean house again in the intelligence community. They keep fucking up our beautiful plans, which would certainly work if the stupid spooks could organise a two-car funeral.'

He also didn't suffer the delusional fantasies of today's neo-cons...

'...Having said that, I think basically for the last three or four weeks the skeptics have been proven to be too skeptical. The naysayers who said it could never happen, it's going to be violent, his departure would mean the Muslim Brotherhood taking over or total chaos in the streets of Egypt, they have been proven wrong. And the notion that the Egyptian people have managed to pull off this democratic, peaceful removal of a dictator, and now have a seemingly a pretty stable situation in the streets of Cairo and the other big cities, with the guarantee or at least a promise of a transition to free and fair elections and no real sense that those elections are -- yet that the elections are going to go in some terrible direction for the U.S. or for Egypt itself.

I think this may be a case where the normal worldly pessimism is too pessimistic and the normal cynicism is too cynical, and one has a right to actually be hopeful about these developments in Egypt."

- Bill Kristol, Fox News Sunday, 13 February 2011

Reagan drew red lines and the world knew that he would not erase them. But, rather than engaging in Wilsonian neo-realpolitik - making the world safe for democracy and spreading it to every corner of the planet through the use of force and nation-building, for example, he was smart enough to 'look into Putin's Gorbachev's eyes and see his soul'...and then tell him 'here's the deal', and walk out at Reykjavík when Gorby made the mistake of thinking he was bluffing.

Reagan would be called an 'Isolationist' today by people like Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator McCain, President Barack Obama, Mrs Clinton, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Jennifer Rubin. He, too, had an 'America...and her allies...First' foreign policy. He didn't use military force in every situation, intervene in every conflict, liberate people who were unwilling to, at least, join in the fight, constantly violate the Pottery Barn Rule, and attempt to impose by force Western-style democracy in regions that either had no history with that form of government or had seen thousands of years of tyranny, sectarianism, conflict, and instability.

What today's neo-cons refuse to understand and Reagan clearly did is:

1. You cannot impose democracy upon a people, who are unwilling to fight to liberate themselves, have no or a weak civil society, and lack the understanding of or willingness to embrace ordered liberty. No amount of nation-building will succeed where the fundamental foundations are absent.

2. You cannot remake the world in your delusional image, especially through military force. Foreign policy should and must be driven by concerns that have a serious impact on American interests or national security or those of our allies. We can neither be the world's policeman or the world's saviour. Yes, we must exhibit strong leadership, but that doesn't mean that we have an obligation to intervene in civil wars or save every widow and child stuck in the middle of warring factions.

A question for the 'Cruz is an Isolationist' bunch:

What are your criteria for use of American military force? Should the US have intervened in the Hutu-Tutsi conflict? If so, upon whose side? What would have been the American national interest? Should the US put boots on the ground in Sri Lanka or Burundi? What is the limiting principle of your foreign policy?

Another question:

Why should Americans expend their blood, sweat, tears, lives, limbs, and dollars fighting to liberate a country from a dictator when the fighting age men of that same country can’t be bothered? In fact, they have so little interest in the future of their own country that they fled to the ‘welfare paradises’ of Northern Europe leaving their grandmothers, mothers, wives, sisters, aunts, cousins, and children behind to, somehow, survive without any income and little food whilst dodging the weaponry of Assad, ISIS, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the US-led ‘coalition’, Russia, and the new Saudi-led ‘Arab coalition’.

Throughout Eastern Europe, there are statues of Ronald Reagan in cities, towns, and villages. People still talk about him with unfettered gratitude. Parents named their sons after him. They are grateful because he fought FOR THEM ANDALONGSIDE THEM. He didn’t try to impose anything on them. They both shared the same goal. He didn’t reduce their countries to rubble and then occupy them for decades with tens of thousands of troops engaging in nation-building. They rebuilt their own governments, societies, economies, and countries - often with the requested help of their friend and ally, the United States.

Reagan, along with Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and the millions of people living under the iron fist of tyranny, defeated Communism without starting World War III.

Reagan didn’t need to intervene in every conflict to defeat the Soviet Union.

Reagan didn’t need to use the military to spread the ideas of freedom and liberty.

Reagan didn’t need to bomb every county, depose every despot, and create evermore dire humanitarian crises in order to help free hundreds of millions of people living under Moscow’s iron thumb or its anointed tinpot dictators throughout the world.

Reagan didn’t need a Hot War to win the Cold War.

In Rubio World, that would make Reagan an ISOLATIONIST.

Reagan had a strategy for defeating the Soviet Union: ‘WE WIN. THEY LOSE.'

In Rubio World, I guess that would make Ronald Wilson Reagan just like Charles Lindbergh or something.

ADDENDUM:So many attempts at revisionism and mischaracterisation going on with this...and other charges coming from the Rubio campaign.

'Ted Cruz is an ISOLATIONIST and doesn't support the military or care about national security because he voted against the NDAA!11!!'

Yes, Cruz voted against the NDAA...because it gave President Obama the power to arrest and detain American CITIZENS without due process and even the access to counsel. I would have voted against it, too. Back at the time the news of the provision in the NDAA broke, most of the Right was up in arms about it. If they had voted against the NDAA because it fundamentally violated the constitutional and civil rights of American citizens, would they have all been considered Isolationists, who didn't support the military and couldn't give a shit about national security? C'mon.

'Ted Cruz doesn't support Israel or the Iron Dome because he voted against the NDAA!!! He must be anti-semitic!!11!'

Yeah, sure. The guy, who wants to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem and said this is against Israel and hates DA JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS or something:

'I am saddened to see that some here, not everyone, but some here, are so consumed with hate… If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you.'

– Senator Ted Cruz before walking off the stage after being booed by a Middle Eastern group for supporting Israel

As for this immigration brouhaha, there are two absolute known truths here:1. Marco Rubio, not Ted Cruz, was a member of the Gang of 8.2. Marco Rubio has flip-flopped numerous times on legalisation and a pathway to citizenship.

* As Speaker of the House in Florida, he supported both.

* As a candidate for the Republican senatorial nomination in Florida against Charlie Crist and then in the general election, he opposed both.

* As a member of the Gang of 8, he supported both.

* Now, after the latest debate, he either opposes both or supports only legalisation 'down the road.'

When it comes to the Flip-Flopping Olympics, Marco Rubio only slightly loses out to John Kerry.Since he's now suddenly all concerned about truth, consistency, character, and integrity, Make Marco Rubio Eat His Own Words...

14 December 2015

Thepiece, written by the magazine’s editor in chief, David Remnick, quotes “American officials” who describe Netanyahu as “myopic, entitled, untrustworthy, routinely disrespectful toward the president, and focused solely on short-term political tactics to keep his right-wing constituency in line.”

The piece goes on to describe the “sources of Kerry’s exasperation with Netanyahu.” Quoting State Department aides, it says these “range from the injustice of settlement building in the West Bank to the way he employs Yitzhak Molcho, his lawyer and confidant, to stifle even the most inconsequential negotiation.”…

Kerry, writes Remnick, “believes that Israel, along with the occupied territories, is headed toward becoming a ‘unitary state that is an impossible entity to manage.’ He is particularly concerned, he said, that the Palestinian Authority could collapse; that, in the event, “the P.A.’s thirty thousand security officers would scatter; and that chaos and increasingly violent clashes with Israel would follow.”

Sounds like Netanyahu pretty much nailed Obama.

Myopic?'My containment strategy of the JV team is working fine and I'm not changing anything.'

Entitled? Lolz. 'Sit in the back of the bus.' 'Enemies.' 'For those that voted on Tuesday, I heard you. For the twice as many that didn't, I heard you, too.' 'It's the right thing to do!' 'The American people have no say in the matters of Iran, refugees, and the climate deal.' 'I have a pen and a phone.'

Untrustworthy?'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.' 'If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' 'My parents met at Selma and I'm the result.' 'I watched my mother suffer for a year and die because she didn't have health insurance.' 'That's a red line for me. That would change my calculus.' 'Your premiums will go down $2,500 a year.' 'Your premiums will go down 3000% a year.' 'A disgusting YouTube video is responsible for the murders of four brave Americans.'

Disrespectful? 'The United States should interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations...unless they are Honduras, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Canada, Britain, Estonia, Ukraine, etc.' 'I won.'

And, whose community organising administration called a war hero a 'CHICKENSHIT'? That CHICKENSHIT could kicked the Mom Jeans-wearing SJW's bony ass anyday.

The ironic thing is that Bibi is hardly the only leader in the world that believes this of Obama. In fact, many do. Obama lives in a very isolated bubble filled with sycophants, who tell him that he is the greatest thing since The Messiah God and the smartest, wisest, and most fantastic human being to ever have walked the Earth. He is never wrong. Everyone else is either a Neanderthal or not as Enlightened as he. With one hand tied behind his back, he could CRUSHa TEAM of Garry Kasparov, Deep Blue, Vladimir Kramnik, and Magnus Carlsen at 9,875,463 dimensional chess...BLINDFOLDED!!!

No one tells him what he doesn't want to hear and, the few that have are quickly shown the door. He holds 'the goods' on people in order to get them to go along with whatever he wants.

He has very few relationships with people within his own Party. Some Democrats in Congress have never spoken to him. If he wants something, he usually has an underling call to twist their arms. Even amongst long-serving and those in leadership have said that there is no closeness between them and Barack Obama. Like Stepford Wives, they do whatever he wants and hope/pray for a pat on the head or a handshake as he makes his rockstar entry into the SOTU.

BHO, KMA: (_*_)

FIRSTLY,read their own words:

Hamas

THE COVENANT OF THE
HAMAS - MAIN POINTS

The
Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement was issued on 18 August 1988. The
Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as the HAMAS, is an extremist
fundamentalist Islamic organization operating in the territories under Israeli
control. Its Covenant is a comprehensive Manifesto comprised of 36 separate
articles, all of which promote the basic HAMAS goal of destroying the State of
Israel through Jihad (Islamic Holy War).
The following are excerpts of the HAMAS Covenant:

Goals of the HAMAS:

'The Islamic Resistance
Movement is a
distinguished Palestinian
movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and
whose way of
life is Islam. It strives to
raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.' (Article 6)

On the Destruction
of Israel:

'Israel will exist
and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it
obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)

The Exclusive
Moslem Nature of the Area:

'The land of
Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Moslem
generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon
it or any part of it.' (Article 11)

'Palestine is an
Islamic land... Since this
is the case,
the Liberation of Palestine
is an individual
duty for every
Moslem wherever he may be.' (Article 13)

The Call to Jihad:

'The day the
enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every
Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner
of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)

'Ranks will close,
fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world
will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to
Jihad!'. This cry will reach the heavens
and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders
vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.' (Article 33)

Rejection of a
Negotiated Peace Settlement:

'[Peace]
initiatives, and so-called
peaceful solutions and international conferences are in
contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those
conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in
the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except
by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste
of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

Condemnation of the
Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty:

'Egypt was, to a
great extent, removed from the circle of struggle [against Zionism] through the
treacherous Camp David Agreement. The
Zionists are trying to
draw other Arab
countries into similar agreements in order to bring them
outside the circle
of struggle....Leaving the circle
of struggle against Zionism is high
treason, and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act.' (Article 32)

Anti-Semitic
Incitement:

'The
Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them.
Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will
cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'
(Article 7)

'The
enemies have been scheming for a long time
... and have accumulated huge and
influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world
media... With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the
globe... They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and
most of the revolutions we hear about... With their
money they formed
secret organizations - such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the
Lions - which are spreading around the
world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests...
They stood behind World War I ... and
formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were
behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains... There is
no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it.' (Article 22)

'Zionism
scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet Expansion from the
Nile to the Euphrates River. When they
have finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they will
look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out in the
'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.' (Article 32)

'The
HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle
against World Zionism... Islamic groups all over the Arab world should also do
the same, since they are best equipped for their future role in the fight
against the warmongering Jews.' (Article 32)

Do those words sound like they come from people those
want two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace?

When Israel was established half a year later, its founders officially extended their “hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peaceand good neighbourliness, and [appealed] to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help [...] for the advancement of the entire Middle East”. Those countries responded by launching a war of annihilation on the newborn state. Decades later, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged the Arab refusal to accept the 1947 partition plan as a 'mistake'.

FOURTHLY, there has been a century of Palestinian rejection of peace and Pallywood's propagandists play Useful Infidels like John Kerry like a scimitar (music is supposedly haram so out goes the Stradivarius or Oud): A Century of Palestinian Rejectionism